Talk:Hajong people

In May this article was marked as needing references and its notability was questioned. I have since added content as has another user. How can we remove the notices saying it needs references etc.? Thanks Virginia C. Phillips (talk) 10:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you believe that there is enough references in the article and problems have been fixed, remove the tags. Please note that ANY editor in good standing can just as easily readd the tags.-- The    wikifyer's corner   22:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Unpublished references
I'm concerned about the use of the following unpublished references:
 * Ahmad, S., A. Kim, S. Kim, and M. Sangma. (2005). The Hajong of Bangladesh: A sociolinguistic survey. Unpublished manuscript.
 * Kinny, E. and I. Zeliang. (2005). A Sociolinguistic survey among the Hajong of India. Unpublished manuscript.

Per reliable source, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources..."

Are there reasons these should be exceptions?-- SPhilbrick T 16:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

British Era sources
Per consensus and general policy here in Wikipedia, we do not use British Raj era sources when it comes to ethnic groups. So such changes will be removed. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Chaipau (talk) 11:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Not to mention, the British sources do not provide any thing of importance other than to introduce scientific racism in an ethnic article, that is discouraged in Wikipedia. I'm going to add a bit for the migration part sourced from a journal present already . Please see if you can contribute in it. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That looks like a good source, but I can access only part of it. Is it available via Wikipedia library? Besides, Bareh (a well know scholar) is also probably a good source.  Chaipau (talk) 13:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No only the excerpts. Don't know whether available in Wikipedia library. Kindly use Bareh if needed. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think Nath (1989) supports the remaining content in that sentence after this. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Feel free to remove the remainder if you're confident Nath doesn't support it. Skimming his book, I thought it more or less said so (maybe not on the exact page cited, but within a page or two), but it isn't my area of expertise. Worldbruce (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You are right. I've included a range of pages, since that would better represent the content. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)